Conferees Likely To Loosen Rules In Bilingual Law

Washington--House and Senate conferees have agreed to increase from
4 percent to 25 percent the portion of federal bilingual-education
funds that can go to alternative, English-based programs, according to
Congressional sources.

That resolution of a longstanding dispute is one of many agreements
reached by House and Senate staff members in nearly a month of
negotiation on differences between the two chambers' omnibus
education-reauthorization bills.

The agreements have set the stage for a formal conference this
week.

The compromises forged by the aides are likely to win approval from
the lawmakers on the conference committee. The panel is also expected
to discuss outstanding issues and could resolve some of them this
week.

One hotly disputed provision is the proposed expansion of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Aides said House conferees were "apprehensive" about the Senate's
naep proposals, and that staff members were drafting an alternative,
less ambitious proposal as of late last week.

The expansion plan, supported by the Education Department, calls for
testing more students more frequently in more subjects, and for
collecting data that allow state-by-state comparisons.

The proposal for such comparisons is opposed by some educators and
lawmakers, who argue that it could lead to more test-oriented
instruction and result in a de facto national curriculum.

One House aide said some conferees were "dead-set against" the
provision and many were reluctant to "throw another $10 million" into
naep, particularly after the recent controversy over an "anomaly" in
results from the assessment's 1986 reading test. (See Education Week,
March 2, 1988.)

On another contentious issue, aides said differences over "program
improvement" provisions that would give states authority to intervene
in failing Chapter 1 programs would definitely not be resolved before
the lawmakers meet. (See related story, page 17.)

The eligibility formula for the compensatory-education program's
"concentration" grants--which are designed to increase support for
districts with heavy concentrations of poor students--is also an
unresolved dispute.

The issue is "whose ox is being gored," one aide said, noting that
the formula will determine whose constituents benefit most.

Uncertainty on New Programs

Also undecided, staff members said, is the fate of several new
programs proposed in S 373, the Senate's version of the reauthorization
bill.

They include a family-school-partnership initiative, the proposed
"fund for the improvement and reform of schools and teaching," a new
discretionary fund for the Secretary of Education, and a
rural-education program.

Aides said most such programs probably would be retained in the
final bill in some form, but no firm decisions had been reached late
last week. One House aide said some new programs may be consolidated
into a block grant.

Aides agreed that two proposals to support parental choice were the
most controversial among House conferees, and were certain to be
debated by the conference committee.

One would expand the magnet-schools program to make districts not
undergoing desegregation eligible for grants. House aides said their
conferees might seek amendments that would target the initiative at
predominantly minority districts.

The other proposal--considered even more controversial--would create
a new program for districts interested in experimenting with
open-enrollment plans.

Although only public schools would be eligible, one aide said that
Representative Augustus F. Hawkins, Democrat of California and chairman
of the House Education and Labor Committee, had vowed that "a voucher
program would never come out of his committee."

Aides said many House conferees also oppose a Senate initiative to
support child-development centers. Their position, an aide explained,
is that the proposal should not be included in the education bill in a
year when a host of preschool and child-care proposals are being
considered separately.

Bilingual Controversy

The bilingual-education issue was expected to be among the most
difficult to resolve.

The controversy began in 1985, when the Reagan Administration
proposed eliminating a provision restricting the bulk of funding for
bilingual education to programs using students' native languages.

The Administration argued that local educators should be allowed
more "flexibility" in choosing alternative instructional methods, such
as those emphasizing English.

Bilingual-education advocates strongly opposed that idea, arguing
that native-language methods have been shown to be more effective.

HR 5, the House version of the omnibus bill, included compromise
language that would guarantee existing funding levels for bilingual
programs, while earmarking 75 percent of any additional appropriations
for alternative approaches.

The Senate bill contains a different compromise that would raise the
current 4 percent limit on funding for alternative programs to 25
percent.

Trades on Provisions

Aides said the issue was resolved when bilingual-education advocates
urged House conferees to accept the Senate plan. In return, Senate
staff members agreed to accept other House provisions that the
advocates favor, such as language limiting the Education Department's
ability to alter the program through regulations.

While the House plan would have preserved existing funding, and
would probably have resulted in less funding for alternative programs,
"the cost was to give up the future of bilingual education," said James
J. Lyons, legislative counsel for the National Association for
Bilingual Education.

In addition, Mr. Lyons said, the Senate language permits, but does
not mandate, funding for alternative programs.

A new Administration might not favor such alternative approaches, he
said.

He also noted that the Senate version would allow more funding for
developmental, or "two-way," bilingual-education programs--methods that
many bilingual advocates con4sider promising.

In a letter to conferees, Mr. Lyons also expressed a desire to
defuse the controversy that has surrounded bilingual-education programs
in recent years.

Because the Administration supports the Senate language, he wrote,
it is "more likely to produce the political peace sought through this
legislative compromise."

Other Agreements

Other provisions that aides said they had agreed to retain
include:

House-passed audit-reform language that would make it harder for the
Education Department to recover allegedly misspent funds from school
districts.

A compromise provision urging, but not requiring, the department to
negotiate with advocates on some Chapter 1 regulations.

Virtually all of the Senate's amendments to the impact-aid program,
which compensates districts affected by the presence of federal
activities. Those changes would be combined with the lower,
House-passed authorization level and a limit on annual growth.

The National Association of Federally Impacted Schools favors the
Senate changes, which would simplify the distribution formula and allow
more affected districts to receive some funding, but not the funding
restriction.

Provisions targeting Chapter 2 block-grant funds to a list of
specific purposes, which aides said would include items from both
bills. The final bill, they said, will earmark some Chapter 2 funding
for "effective schools" programs, the approach taken by HR 5. The
Senate bill included a separate program.

New rules for the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act that would
require participating school districts to estimate the extent of their
drug problems and document the success of their programs.

Aides said the bill would mandate technical assistance from state
agencies for districts that cannot show that drug use has declined
because of their efforts.

It does not, however, provide for a cutoff of funding or require
applicant districts to determine the percentage of students using
various drugs, as did the Senate-backed language, which reflected the
Education Department's proposal.

Vol. 07, Issue 25

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.